... FWIW, though, the word in this case is "mugging" - theft by violence or the threat of violence. In the actual scenario at hand, there is no threat of violence, only the use of deception, so "fraud" is correct.

"Why is it OK to shoot him but not OK to demand his wallet?" - are you kidding me?

Sorry, but if your grasp of ethics is really that poor, there really isn't any point in further discussion.

No, you didn't. Read your own comment more carefully. You said nothing about "threatening to shoot".

However: threatening to shoot a robber unless he leaves or surrenders would not be wrong. Threatening to shoot a robber unless he gives you his wallet would be, though I'm not sure that "fraud" is the correct word. Lousy analogy really, since it would be equally wrong whether or not you in fact had the gun.

But the lie *is* what leads to them getting the payment! (As demonstrated by the observation that an innocent victim is just as likely to pay up as a guilty one.)

... and if the victim *didn't* commit the copyright violation, as is often the case?

They're not shooting the "robber", they're pulling a gun on him and demanding his wallet. I'm fairly sure that doesn't count as self-defense.

Also, you're confusing the porn company's business model with Rightscorp's business model.

Did you read the notice? They're demanding money. The lies are there in the hopes of making the victim scared enough to pay up.

I haven't researched this, but it is my understanding that the ISPs just have to forward the notice to the customer; at that point, at least, they don't have to give the complainant the customer's details. (Similar to the system here in NZ.)

Once again, though, you're assuming (against all evidence) that the purpose of these notices is in fact to suppress illegal activity, rather than to line the pockets of the mobster, er, "copyright holder". The business model is based on the "voluntary" fines, not on the original content.

It might be legal, though I'm unconvinced. It is definitely unethical, and it *should* be illegal.

Keep in mind that the only possible justification for copyright's existence is that, on the whole, it benefits society. Every time it is abused, it tips the balance a little more. I'm no longer certain that it *is* a net benefit to society; we may be better off without it.

But they're not trying to suppress copyright infringement. They're trying to get people to send them money. (Whether those people actually committed copyright infringement is a moot point; this sort of extortion works just as well either way.)

Then you're a bad person. Copyright infringement is far less serious than extortion.

That's a theoretical analysis, not an experimental measurement, and is likely to be particularly dubious since we don't have a working theory for quantized general relativity yet. Interesting, but the phrase "does indeed" in the summary is a significant overstatement.

If you read the actual article (and perhaps some of his replies in the comments) you'll find he isn't really saying "never", he's talking about the short to medium term: the next few decades. And the main thrust of his argument depends on post-9/11 security measures rather than overall pricing. That won't last forever either ... or at least I hope not ... but it probably won't change much in that timeframe.

Huh? Who said anything about federal law?

Washington State is part of the US, isn't it? (According to Wikipedia, anyway.) So I would expect the phrase "US government" to include the government of Washington State, along with all other governments within the US. Do you really use it only to describe the federal government? What do you say instead when you mean the federal government *and* the government of the States and other territories collectively?